Foot 5
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
At breakfast Michael told me the Elizabeth Frank biography of Indira Gandhi had created quite a stir. "Apparently, it’s got some things in it that are quite stupid. It’s just distracting from the merits of the book, some gossip stuff about whether she [Gandhi] was having an affair with somebody in the office there and things which ... It’s rather put me off the book, I must say." [CR] "The review I read was very good." [MF] "I read that first, too, and I thought 'that’s a good book.' The chap who did it in the Guardian was quite sensible. He’s a real expert on India and all that ... but what I read last night I’m afraid that, especially Sonia—"
When writing a biography, you want to remain as close to the truth as possible. Gossip often is just a bunch of he said, she said mixed with biased slander. It’s difficult to know which parts are true and which are opinions. A biography is not a gossip column in a magazine; on the contrary it has substance and is based on facts, rather than hearsay.
I think gossip is valuable because it raises questions. These questions might actually lead to a new discovery, if a proper investigation can be performed. Also, I believe a lot more people are more into gossip than facts. If gossip can draw attention or crowds, then there is some value.
Gossip is like jokes: there is some truth in them. That is what makes the difference between the good jokes and the bad ones. People tend to laugh at what is true, just exaggerated. So, if there is gossip swirling around that seems too good to be true, there is usually an interesting story behind it or at least why the gossip was started, which can lead to an undiscovered truth which then becomes fact.
Gossip may be valuable because there has to be a reason for that gossip to have started. There is a possibility of some relevance or truths to all gossip and rumors
I think gossip is more suited in a tabloid or a magazine because in my mind, biographies are more associated with more serious, fact-rooted matters. Gossip is like hearsay, it’s he says, she says, and since it’s not always factual, it’s unnecessary in biographies unless it’s the biographer’s way of subtly commenting on his subject without directly saying something. For these reasons, I don’t think gossip can be justified in biographies.
a biography should be factual and avoid rumors, allowing the reader to see the personal aspects. gossip is not credible. gossip maybe justified if the subject discusses it possibly
Gossip plays an important role in that sense because it is a cause that impacted the subject
Personally, I have always associated biographies with facts and facts only… if gossip was included in a biography, I would think it would confuse the audience since it would be based on opinions about what he or she did. On the other hand, gossip can be justified if it is fact checked.
I believe not. If the biography only has facts, it would be rather boring. A biography should have stories and memories that cannot be 100% fact-checked. In addition, accounts from individuals close to the subject, and those not so fond (to get a broader view). However, it is important to mention the source. The reason why a biography should not only be facts is to add some entertainment into the book. Nonetheless, this should be done without compromising the integrity of the subject or the book itself.
Gossip its irrelevant in this case. I doesn’t follow the purpose of the book
Gossip in biography makes the story more scandalous and the source of the gossip could be biased towards the subject, which falsifies the subjects’ image. I believe that gossip can be justified in the biographer does enough investigation through multiple sources to prove that the gossip about the subject is indeed factual.
It’s rare that gossip has any positive or substantial influence on anything, let alone a biography. You never know when gossip is valid. It features a significant amount of questionable information that likely has emotional ties. A biography can’t feature content that isn’t valid. Gossip can reveal some types of truth. It’s not a consistent source for information, which doesn’t make it likely justified.
The issue with gossip in a biography is how it can effect the credibility of the biography. In addition, gossip has uncertainty, and this could tarnish the subject’s reputation or merit one for accomplishments never achieved.
To a degree, gossip can be justified. I believe it mostly depends on the source of the gossip. For example, an unbiased individual who knows the subject to a strong degree can make some claims. Also, it should be notified that the claim is gossip, so the reader can infer appropriately. Furthermore, I believe the subject of the gossip matters for it to be justified. For example, gossip regarding a secret family is too much to entertain.
The intrinsic issues with gossip are the same when gossip is put into a biography. Gossip is often a twist on the truth, twice removed. Therefore not the truth, and biographies are supposed to be stories that recollect the truth of someones life. Gossip can be justified if the gossip greatly effects the targets life. For example, all their life they struggled fighting the stigma from the gossip surrounding them.
Gossip is based in what others say, therefore is not a valid information unless it can be justify with proves that can support it. if that is the cases then the inclusion of the gossip in a biography will be valid.
Gossip is usually based mostly on rumors and hearsay. However, a biographer could use gossip as a possible lead to investigate, and substantiate, something and add it into a biography.
Gossip is typically not grounded on facts, but if the right story is worked, you could unearth some “unknown unknowns.” They could lead to a more rewarding biography
What is wrong about gossip in a biography is that the gossip is from third-party opinions. A biography is mainly about a subject, so the third-party should not be relevant. The gossip can be justified if there’s evidence and documentation, but other than that, there is no possible way unless a third-party is a witness or was directly involved
What bothered me, after my own sessions with Michael, was his rather Puritanical response to Frank’s biography. He had not even read it, yet he was already condemning it. How could a journalist and a biographer base an opinion simply on soaking up some negative press comment and the word of friends? I asked a question that did not seem to have occurred to him: [CR] You don’t think Sonia might be overreacting to this biography? [MF] Well, she might be, I suppose. [CR] That’s my experience. Often families overreact. [MF] You bet. That might very well be. Much of the biography is pro-India. But I didn’t realise it’s got this stuff in it ... this lover in the office. Now it [Frank’s book] also says that at an early stage in her life Indira was not going to return to India. She was going to come here ... and that it almost happened. Now ... she’s [Frank] defending it, saying some people talked to her along those lines. I never heard it. But what did that prove? Surely Michael could see that his friendship with Indira could not, in itself, weigh against the researches of a serious biographer. I later read the book and saw no reason to dispute Frank’s account, which, after all, was a report, not a flat statement of fact. But to Michael and his ilk, any suggestion that Indira, who had spent the war years in London quite happily, would even have considered a life apart from India was anathema. Michael, by his own admission, was a hero-worshipper, and even when he admitted his hero’s faults, he could not seem to then re-factor his hero worship. Rajiv, for example, had accepted enormous bribes, Michael admitted. That was “very sad,” Michael added. “I couldn’t believe it at the beginning,” but Suraj Paul, one of Michael’s principal Indian backers, had disabused Michael of his illusions.
I think that friendship can create a lot of passionate feelings which are based simply on the fact that they have more faith in their friend’s word then the journalist’s. They don’t want to believe that their friend, someone they are close to could do something that negative. Friendship automatically creates bias, even more so if you are the journalist. Some may choose to leave things out to protect their friend’s reputation and their friendship. It wouldn’t be a good idea for a journalist to write about someone they are particularly close to.
Friendship isn’t necessarily incompatible with journalism but it can’t be a coincidence that many journalists are portrayed as loners with little friends. Friendship and journalism is almost like a catch 22 situation. Journalists need friends to get the inside scoop but the very nature of their job deters people from being friends with them.
In this context, friendship is also incompatible with journalism because as the subject’s friend, you have the notion that you know more about the person than a journalist would, hence Michael’s condemnation of Frank’s biography without even reading it.
Because they have built a trust between them, the journalist would be given information more freely.
once you have a personal relationship with the subject, whether it is positive or negative, you quickly choose a side, without trying. if you enjoy the person you are more likely to write a positive story and so on. a journalist should remain as objective as possible and therefore if there is a friendship going on the subject already wins. it defies the purpose of true heart journalism.
I think it depends if the friendship it’s going to intervene with the work, then it can be negative.
One way friendship can intervene is when a friend asks for favors that a journalist cannot do, because it might comprise the integrity of one’s work. However, the desire to maintain that friendship can cause a struggle due to an ethical dilemma.
Friendship can be at certain times incompatible with journalism, this occurs when the subject attempts to alter the information the journalist wants to convey about the subject: for example regarding him in a higher manner than revealing the truths of the subjects’ flaws alongside their positives. On the other hand, friendship can be very beneficial for the journalist who through their bond with the subject can uncover more information about the subject.
Friendship is compatible with journalism if a few requirements are met. Firstly, if the journalist is true to journalism, then the friend he would be working with would have to be true to the truth. This means that friendship is compatible with journalism when the same outcome is wanted.
When it comes to true journalism, all emotional ties are to be removed. That’s the biggest reason why friendship is incompatible with journalism. Friendship inspires bias, which leads to insufficient work.
Possibly. However, I believe emotional ties more often lead to passion. From my experiences most of my passions came from things I cared about deeply. Also, in connection to truth, I think passion can bury the truth in some cases, or cause one to overlook a fact.
Yes, if it leads to poor reporting. Some instances would be if: friendships cause the writer to behave in a manner that is favoring the friend, or report on one aspect of a story, or give a biased opinion, due to the impact it can have on a friend. However, if friendships lead to new story leads, credible information, access to exclusive events, then there is compatibility. I think what it comes down to is how the journalist handles the friendships.
Friendship is not incompatible with journalism. Often friendship gains you access to relationships that cultivate stories. Gains you access to sources that you need to complete the story. Sometimes, journalist gain friendships in order to get to the bottom of a story, or even to decipher is there is one in the first place. However, valuing a friendship over the authenticity of a piece takes away the truth value. Furthermore, if you value a friendship more than the story then you shouldn’t go ahead with the story.
Friendship doesn’t necessarily have to be incompatible with journalism, but it does raise some issues involving ethics. Friends tend to have allegiance towards one another, so as a journalist this can be a conflict of interest when needing to remain objective.
Journalists must be able remain objective in their reporting, no matter who the subject may be. If a friendship stands as a roadblock, then it is incompatible.
I think friendship is compatible under certain circumstances, like when the subject fully understands the obligation of a journalist and their duty, when the subject is not affected or worried about revealing information, or when the biographer can talk the subject into accepting what is required for a biography.
Hero worshiping is another form of extreme bias, where the individual sees someone as a role model. When a journalist has such high reverence, it is difficult to write or believe something about their role model that proves otherwise. It wouldn’t be fair to the biography to treat someone differently because of personal opinions.
I totally agree. It would be extremely hard to write about someone that you admire or are passionate. It would also be unfair to the audience that are looking to read an autobiography with objectivity.
Then it is doing its readers a disservice by not sharing all sides of the story. The platonic ideal of a biography should let the readers form their own opinions of the subject based on facts and anecdotes, good and bad.
Hero worship sets you up with certain expectations of your hero. I mean the word hero itself puts your idol on a pedestal which only sets you up for disappointment when unfavorable truths are revealed in a biography. Some people could choose to be in denial, or overlook these negative attributes while others become disillusioned.
i believe that a true biography focuses on all aspects of the being. the good, the bad have all made up this person and they should not be ashamed. it shows professionalism and fearlessness in the writer, when they choose to avoid being bias and worshiping this hero. not everyone is perfect,and therefore your imperfections teach you lessons and make you wiser and objective.
Hero-worshiping is established in a biography when the subject is placed on a mantle, since the biographer might see the subject as an almighty, unblemished figure. This can lead to disillusion among the biographer when they find out their hero is flawed, and may result in bias when writing about them since they will downplay or even ignore any faults.
When it comes to hero worshipping, it usually means nothing but praise for that person. That precludes them from writing a true biography. Revering someone deeply will leave you narrow minded rather than open minded.
Hero-worshipping the target of a biography contuses the biography, because instead of the target trying to assure they are depicted in a positive light, the writer cannot see the target in any other light.
It can harm the biography because of the fact that a hero worship means something positive, something that people believe and follow. And that is why the biography will avoid every negative facts that a hero cannot have. which means that the biography will not be fully complete.
Hero Worshipping is inimical to biography for then the biography becomes like a book of compliments. You are no longer writing a true story, you’re writing a persuasive essay to prove your own favorable view. There is a good and bad to everyone and it is a biographer’s duty to showcase both sides. You are also doing a disservice to the subject themselves for not portraying their actual tale.
With hero worship there is an inherent bias towards writing someone’s biography. Even if the writer intends to remain unbiased and objective, it’s likely that their worship will affect their ability to be objective.
Hero worshipping is actually looking up to someone/something and there are already favorable opinions about the hero. A biographer does not have to see the subject as a role model and should be open to different kinds of opinions
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments